The Gospel account of Matthew tells the same story as that found in the other three Gospels, so scholars are certain of its authenticity.

Misleading. The synoptic tradition is regarded by many to be solid (and I agree). However, the identity of the authors is nowhere near as certain. IF the names are correct—and they very well could've been nothing more than later guesses—then at least Matthew and Luke in particular were edited so much as to be unrecognizable compared to the originals. In the case of Matthew, we have testimony from the church fathers that he wrote something, but it does NOT match the work we have attributed to him. It is said that he mainly compiled a list of things Jesus said and did in Hebrew, and several people translated them to the best of their ability. Our Matthew is more of a hybrid of Hebrew and Greek portions, and it has a clear and refined narrative structure. Furthermore, it shows clear signs of alteration to conform to an editor's beliefs. He removed everything that criticizes the wealthy, for example, and added a whole bunch of Judaizing crap like "Only go to the Israelites, not the goy scum". Furthermore, it's well known that whoever wrote Luke sourced from a much different version, as he knows only the list of events without all the edits, and very little of the narrative. Luke itself is a huge revision and expansion, which we know because the Marcionites kept the older version and it was extensively commented on by the church fathers, as well as the fact that the very earliest sources were aware of this version rather than Luke as it is now. And the virgin birth is an addition to both Matthew and Luke, which is unsurprising since the whole idea is based on a misreading of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and is a pagan trope.

In the case of Luke, we know that it used to be MUCH shorter and less polished, because we have actual quotations throughout history which show this evolution. An earlier version also continued to be used by the Marcionites.